Modern Creativity

Background Interest is rising in smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative

Background Interest is rising in smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to smoking, but published reviews on smokeless tobacco and malignancy are limited. introducing smokeless tobacco into 1092443-52-1 supplier a populace of never-smoking men. Results Eighty-nine studies were recognized; 62 US and 18 Scandinavian. Forty-six (52%) controlled for smoking. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates for most sites showed little association. Smoking-adjusted estimates were only significant for oropharyngeal malignancy (1.36, CI 1.04C1.77, n = 19) and prostate cancer (1.29, 1.07C1.55, n = 4). The oropharyngeal association disappeared for estimates published since 1990 (1.00, 0.83C1.20, n = 14), for Scandinavia (0.97, 0.68C1.37, n = 7), and for alcohol-adjusted estimates (1.07, 0.84C1.37, n = 10). Any effect of current US products or Scandinavian snuff seems very limited. The prostate malignancy data are inadequate for a obvious conclusion. Some meta-analyses suggest a possible effect for oesophagus, pancreas, Rabbit Polyclonal to PEX10 larynx and kidney cancer, but other cancers show no 1092443-52-1 supplier effect of smokeless tobacco. Any possible effects are not obvious in Scandinavia. Of 142,205 smoking-related male US malignancy deaths in 2005, 104,737 are smoking-attributable. Smokeless tobacco-attributable deaths would be 1,102 (1.1%) if as many used smokeless tobacco as had smoked, and 2,081 (2.0%) if everyone used smokeless tobacco. Conclusion An increased risk of oropharyngeal malignancy is usually obvious most clearly for past smokeless tobacco use in the USA, but not for Scandinavian snuff. Effects of smokeless tobacco use on other cancers are not clearly exhibited. Risk from modern products is much less than for smoking. Background Over the last 10 years, desire for smokeless tobacco (ST) as a possible safer alternative to smoking has risen. Although a number of recent reviews have considered the evidence relating ST to malignancy, some have not included meta-analyses [1-3], as well as others have only provided quantitative summaries for specific sites: oropharyngeal malignancy [4], pancreatic malignancy [5], or oropharyngeal, oesophageal, pancreatic and lung malignancy [6]. No formal comparisons have been conducted with the well-known effects of smoking [7,8]. The evaluate described in this paper is restricted to studies in 1092443-52-1 supplier Western populations. In practice this predominantly means studies in the USA and Sweden, the only North American and European countries 1092443-52-1 supplier where the two major types of ST C chewing tobacco and snuff C are commonly used [2]. Although ST is also widely used in developing countries, particularly parts of Central and South-East Asia, the tobacco is usually often used in combination with other products, such as betel nut quid, slaked lime, areca nut and even snail shells [1,2,9]. This review also does not consider the limited data on nicotine chewing gum. Our first objective is to carry out a comprehensive review of the available epidemiological evidence in Western countries relating ST to malignancy, including meta-analyses for as many malignancy types as the data justify. In meeting this objective, we take proper account of the potential confounding role of smoking by distinguishing effect estimates which are unadjusted for smoking and those which take smoking into account (either by adjustment in analyses based on the whole populace of smokers and non-smokers combined or by restricting analysis to lifelong by no means smokers). Our second objective is usually to provide a quantitative indication of the relative effects of ST and cigarette smoking. Methods Study identification and selection All reports had to satisfy the following inclusion criteria: published in a peer examined journal or the results publicly available, epidemiological study in humans, of cohort or case-control design, study location specified, any form of malignancy as the outcome, and chewing tobacco, oral snuff or unspecified ST as the exposure. They also had to fall outside the exclusion criteria: conducted in an Asian or African populace, no control group, or improper design (case statement, qualitative study or review/meta-analysis). Relevant papers were sought from a MEDLINE search conducted in May 2008 of “malignancy” AND (“smokeless.